NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

You're the undisputed master at turning things on their heads and driving them into the ground.

What I said was that instead of allowing individual horses to receive a variable amount of lasix (3cc to 10cc), it would be more ideal to standardize the amount. That is to say, every horse would receive lasix at the same dosage--for example, 0.5mg/kg bw--every time it runs.

What you are arguing is anyone's guess.

How about if we use a dose of lasix that is both efficacious and legal, instead? Just a suggestion. From a medical person.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I clearly was referencing the studies about Lasix and performance that used actual race results, nothing more. Only an idiot could stretch that to other fields.like weather. Well, an idiot or a psycho.

Nope. All you said was, "I read the reports". I asked you which specific studies you have determined, in your infinite wisdom, were inadequate, poor methodology, etc.

You declined to answer. You still haven't.

So answer now. Name one of those hundreds of peer-reviewed, published study where you have determined the methodology is wrong making the results wrong.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

How about if we use a dose of lasix that is both efficacious and legal, instead? Just a suggestion. From a medical person.

Here we go again. Fine, let's change the example to 1.0 mg/kg.

What I said was that instead of allowing individual horses to receive a variable amount of lasix (3cc to 10cc), it would be more ideal to standardize the amount. That is to say, every horse would receive lasix at the same dosage--for example, 1.0 mg/kg bw--every time it runs.

Better?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Here we go again. Fine, let's change the example to 1.0 mg/kg.

What I said was that instead of allowing individual horses to receive a variable amount of lasix (3cc to 10cc), it would be more ideal to standardize the amount. That is to say, every horse would receive lasix at the same dosage--for example, 1.0 mg/kg bw--every time it runs.

Better?

It's great you know how to google

Why do you think a horse may get a different dose of lasix the next time it's used?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, that's exactly what you said. Here. Read your words:



I'll inform Gluck and NIH that it is worthless to do any research using actual horses races or laboratory imitation of racing conditions, because cmorioles has a database that can easily disprove any of the conclusions they draw from the data they have.

You might want to look up "psychotic". It doesn't mean how you are using it. And, again:the climate deniers need men who think like you.

It's nice to know that, throughout weeks of discussion regarding lasix, you and your buddy Rollo have absolutely refused to acknowledge any piece of evidence that even remotely negatively impacts your preformed opinions.

Good luck with that, guys.

I really think you should go over to England and some of the other countries where lasix is banned on race day. I think if you explained to them how beneficial lasix is to the horses, I'm sure they would legalize it. Nobody over there understands. They are just ignorant in all of those countries. I think you need to enlighten them. I mean the arguments in favor of lasix are so strong, I don't know how anyone could be against it.

Guys like myself, Cmorioles, and RolloTomassi are just stubborn. We know that lasix is great for the horses. Lasix has improved Amercian racing immensely. There is no chance that lasix is one of the contributing factors to horses having fewer starts per year now than they did 30 years ago.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The retroactive studies using actual racing results are particularly laughable. I have a database with nearly a million races in it that can easily disprove any of the conclusions they drew from the data they had.

Not sure how you missed that. Maybe they turned the lights out at Burger King and the juice on your phone is running out.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How about if we use a dose of lasix that is both efficacious and legal, instead? Just a suggestion. From a medical person.

I know you are a veterinarian and not an MD, but I'm sure you have some knowledge about medication for humans. Do you believe in fosamax for people with osteoporosis? The studies have proven that fosamax increases bone density.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Guys like myself, Cmorioles, and RolloTomassi are just stubborn. We know that lasix is great for the horses. Lasix has improved Amercian racing immensely. There is no chance that lasix is one of the contributing factors to horses having fewer starts per year now than they did 30 years ago.

Yep, I'm sure racing with 20 pounds lost before the race is great for them. I know when I run, I always take a water pill to shed myself of 4 or 5 pounds of water weight. It is a great way to compete. I'm also sure that these vets know everything there is to know about the after effects of Lasix in the short time it has been used regularly and that is has absolutely nothing to do with the pathetic state of the game today.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Yep, I'm sure racing with 20 pounds lost before the race is great for them. I know when I run, I always take a water pill to shed myself of 4 or 5 pounds of water weight. It is a great way to compete. I'm also sure that these vets know everything there is to know about the after effects of Lasix in the short time it has been used regularly and that is has absolutely nothing to do with the pathetic state of the game today.

How do you know that you shouldn't shed 4 or 5 pounds of water before you run? Since you are not a doctor, how would you possibly know that it is not good to dehydrate yourself before exercising? LOL.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

How do you know that you shouldn't shed 4 or 5 pounds of water before you run? Since you are not a doctor, how would you possibly know that it is not good to dehydrate yourself before exercising? LOL.

I'm going to shoot myself up with Lasix next time. I bet I run faster! I just won't recover as well. Those weekly runs will turn into monthly runs.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's great you know how to google.

Whatever. You've accomplished nothing other attempting to derail my posts with total and utter BS. Frankly, you should be fucl<ing banned for your behavior.

Clearly you didn't understand the point I was making, you should have just asked.

Why do you think a horse may get a different dose of lasix the next time it's used?

a) an attempt to alter performance and thus "fix" a race- decreased dose
b) an attempt to control bleeding not controlled at a lower dose- increased dose
c) an attempt to avoid unwanted side effects, ie "reactions to lasix": excessive dehydration, "thumps", colic-like symptoms, dullness- decreased dose
d) an attempt to achieve unproven effects, ie calming- increased dose
e) an attempt to improve poor performance not caused by bleeding- increased dose
f) an attempt to mitigate environmental factors, eg heat, high humidity, poor air quality

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm going to shoot myself up with Lasix next time. I bet I run faster! I just won't recover as well. Those weekly runs will turn into monthly runs.

You definitely would not recover as well. Even if you heavily hydrated yourself after the run, it still would not totally undue the damage. You don't have to be a doctor to know that. That is common sense.

When it comes to horses, they are probably going to get pretty dehydrated from racing on a 90 degree day, even without lasix. Running with lasix on a 90 degree day cannot be good. You don't have to be a veterinarian to know that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Whatever. You've accomplished nothing other attempting to derail my posts with total and utter BS. Frankly, you should be fucl<ing banned for your behavior.

Clearly you didn't understand the point I was making, you should have just asked.


a) an attempt to alter performance and thus "fix" a race- decreased dose
b) an attempt to control bleeding not controlled at a lower dose- increased dose
c) an attempt to avoid unwanted side effects, ie "reactions to lasix": excessive dehydration, "thumps", colic-like symptoms, dullness- decreased dose
d) an attempt to achieve unproven effects, ie calming- increased dose
e) an attempt to improve poor performance not caused by bleeding- increased dose
f) an attempt to mitigate environmental factors, eg heat, high humidity, poor air quality

How dare you come up with such a list. You're not a veterinarian. I think there should be a new rule on this board. Riot should be the only one allowed to give an opinion on lasix. Nobody else on this board is qualified.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

How dare you come up with such a list. You're not a veterinarian. I think there should be a new rule on this board. Riot should be the only one allowed to give an opinion on lasix. Nobody else on this board is qualified.

Is she even employed? Is she is, it must be as an internet poster.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Guys like myself, Cmorioles, and RolloTomassi are just stubborn.

Yes, you guys are quite the show. You are the very picture of 12-year-old boys in a locker room, comparing sizes.

Unfortunately, no matter how often you curse those you disagree with, your obvious stubbornness and ignorance, your refusal to change poorly-informed dogma in the face of experts pointing out your fallacy and falsehood, is a danger to this sport.

The fact remains that your guys uninformed, outdated and wrong opinions are a tiny minority. You're the equivalent of conspiracy theorists and Jenny McCarthy. You do scream ever more loudly and rudely, however, in an attempt to compensate for the lack of fact and truth. Insecurity must be a scary thing for the uninformed and uninformable, to have their dogmatic ideas assaulted but not be able to comprehend or change with the times.

You "know what you know", and dammit, you don't need to consider that you might possibly be entirely wrong.

It has to be very, very dark where your heads are at. But stop trying to ruin horse racing for the rest of us.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

It has to be very, very dark where your heads are at. But stop trying to ruin horse racing for the rest of us.

You don't need us for that. We already have drugs and plenty of unscrupulous trainers.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You don't need us for that. We already have drugs and plenty of unscrupulous trainers.

Then why are you wasting time screaming about lasix? Racing has plenty of real drug problems.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Here we go again. Fine, let's change the example to 1.0 mg/kg.

What I said was that instead of allowing individual horses to receive a variable amount of lasix (3cc to 10cc), it would be more ideal to standardize the amount. That is to say, every horse would receive lasix at the same dosage--for example, 1.0 mg/kg bw--every time it runs.

Better?

Keep it up you could get a de facto license one day to practice in Argentina?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, you guys are quite the show. You are the very picture of 12-year-old boys in a locker room, comparing sizes.

Unfortunately, no matter how often you curse those you disagree with, your obvious stubbornness and ignorance, your refusal to change poorly-informed dogma in the face of experts pointing out your fallacy and falsehood, is a danger to this sport.

The fact remains that your guys uninformed, outdated and wrong opinions are a tiny minority. You're the equivalent of conspiracy theorists and Jenny McCarthy. You do scream ever more loudly and rudely, however, in an attempt to compensate for the lack of fact and truth. Insecurity must be a scary thing for the uninformed and uninformable, to have their dogmatic ideas assaulted but not be able to comprehend or change with the times.

You "know what you know", and dammit, you don't need to consider that you might possibly be entirely wrong.

It has to be very, very dark where your heads are at. But stop trying to ruin horse racing for the rest of us.

It must be very dark where your head is. You think that because you are a vet, you are the only one with a valid opinion? That is ridiculous. And by the way, there are plenty of vets who don't think horses need lasix.

By the way, you don't exactly improve your credibility by saying "eliminating lasix will ruin horseracing". That is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard. Not even the most ardent supporters of lasix would make such a claim. That is even more absurd than someone claiming that the elimination of lasix will be the cure-all for the sport.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, you guys are quite the show. You are the very picture of 12-year-old boys in a locker room, comparing sizes.

Unfortunately, no matter how often you curse those you disagree with, your obvious stubbornness and ignorance, your refusal to change poorly-informed dogma in the face of experts pointing out your fallacy and falsehood, is a danger to this sport.

The fact remains that your guys uninformed, outdated and wrong opinions are a tiny minority. You're the equivalent of conspiracy theorists and Jenny McCarthy. You do scream ever more loudly and rudely, however, in an attempt to compensate for the lack of fact and truth. Insecurity must be a scary thing for the uninformed and uninformable, to have their dogmatic ideas assaulted but not be able to comprehend or change with the times.

You "know what you know", and dammit, you don't need to consider that you might possibly be entirely wrong.

It has to be very, very dark where your heads are at. But stop trying to ruin horse racing for the rest of us.

The truth of the matter is that you are not an iota more qualified than anyone else to decide whether lasix is good for racing or not. I think everyone knows that lasix is somewhat effective in lessening a horse's chances of bleeding. We all know what. That is not the question. If that was the question, I would agree that you have more expertise than most. But that is not the question. The question is whether lasix is good for racing or not. When it comes to that question, most countries believe the answer is "no". Are they right? They're not necessarily right but they weighed all the pros and cons of racing with lasix and they decided the cons outweigh the pros. What is it that you know that these countries don't know? The answer is nothing. You both have all the information. You both looked at all the arguments (in favor of lasix and against lasix) and you came to opposite conclusions. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. It is just a matter of opinion.

There is a right and wrong answer as to whether lasix lessens a horse's chance of bleeding. But there is not a right or wrong answer as to whether lasix is good for horseracing.